| Course | GB815 Applied Research Topics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Comparison matrix |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GB815 Unit 9
Three Directions, Six Criteria, Two Weightings: A Unit 9 Comparison Matrix for Choosing a Research Direction
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GB815: Applied Research Topics
Unit 9 Comparison Matrix
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The scores and Harrowgate Community Bank are composite and illustrative; the studies cited are real.
The Three Surviving Directions
Direction A1: franchise and independent loan outcomes from public SBA records alone, with franchise classifications corrected by name matching. Direction A2: the same analysis with loan officer interviews added to interpret the franchise code. Direction C: interviews with community bank loan officers on how they weigh franchise affiliation, without the loan analysis. Directions B, unit closures from disclosure documents, and D, a franchisee survey, were eliminated earlier: B because the Unit 2 ratings already marked it weakest on time to finish, and D because, as the Unit 1 post warned, its central population, franchisees whose units closed, cannot be reached through an association they have left.
The Criteria and Their Weights
The six criteria come from Unit 2: evidence gap, data availability, access risk, time to finish, practitioner use and candidate position. Each is scored from one to five. In the original weighting, all six count equally. In the revised weighting, access risk counts double, because the Unit 6 seminar showed it had been underestimated: a direction can depend on people at stages after data collection begins.
The Matrix
Direction A1. Evidence gap: 5, because the Unit 3 grid showed the loan-default cell nearly empty. Data availability: 5, because the Unit 5 trial download returned 2,610 new-business loans with franchise codes. Access risk: 5, because no one can withdraw public records, and the Unit 6 fallback removed the dependence on interviews. Time to finish: 4, from the Unit 7 estimate of about 620 hours. Practitioner use: 4, from the Unit 8 audiences, with the limit that loan outcomes are not business outcomes. Candidate position: 4, since a credit analyst understands loan records. Total under equal weights: 27. Under revised weights: 32.
Direction A2. Evidence gap: 5, from the Unit 3 grid. Data availability: 5, from the Unit 5 trial. Access risk: 3, since the interviews depend on the lenders' association director's introductions, as Unit 6 revealed. Time to finish: 3, since interviews add roughly 150 hours to the Unit 7 estimate. Practitioner use: 5, since interviews would explain the code to lenders in their own terms. Candidate position: 3, since loan officers at competing banks may be guarded with a credit analyst from another bank. Total under equal weights: 24. Under revised weights: 27.
Direction C. Evidence gap: 3, since the Unit 3 grid showed lender decision-making studied in several small surveys. Data availability: 3, since interviews must be arranged. Access risk: 2, from the Unit 6 seminar. Time to finish: 4. Practitioner use: 4. Candidate position: 2. Total under equal weights: 18. Under revised weights: 20.
Sensitivity
The ranking is the same under both weightings: A1 first, A2 second and C third. The gap between A1 and A2 widens from three points to five when access risk is doubled, because A2's interview component is its main exposure. Even if access risk were weighted at zero, A2 would score 21 against A1's 22, so A1 leads under every weighting considered. The choice does not depend on the seminar's reweighting, though the reweighting makes it clearer.
The public-records direction wins under every weighting, which means the choice rests on the evidence gathered across the term rather than on how the criteria were weighted.
Interpreting the Result
Two observations matter beyond the ranking. First, A2 scores higher than A1 on practitioner use, so adding interviews would improve the study's relevance if access permits. The design therefore keeps interviews as an optional extension, as the Unit 6 fallback specified. Second, the matrix shows that Direction C's weaknesses are mainly about access and position, not about the question's interest. The question of how lenders weigh franchise affiliation remains worth asking, perhaps by a researcher who does not work for a competing bank.
Why the Evidence Supports A1
The evidence behind A1's scores comes from the term's work and from the literature. The empty loan-default cell reflects the absence of franchise-independent comparisons in studies such as Glennon and Nigro (2005), which used SBA loan records for other purposes, as did DeYoung et al. (2008) in their study of borrower-lender distance. The direction's practical value reflects the contrast between lenders' assumptions and the older survival evidence of Bates (1995). And the method is established: survival analysis of loan records has a clear precedent.
References
Bates, T. (1995). A comparison of franchise and independent small business survival rates. Small Business Economics, 7(5), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01302738
DeYoung, R., Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2008). Borrower-lender distance, credit scoring, and loan performance: Evidence from informational-opaque small business borrowers. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 17(1), 113-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfi.2007.07.002
Glennon, D., & Nigro, P. (2005). Measuring the default risk of small business loans: A survival analysis approach. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37(5), 923-947. https://doi.org/10.1353/mcb.2005.0051
What the GB815 Unit 9 assignment asks for
The ninth GB815 assignment asks you to compare your remaining directions in a matrix and choose one. List the surviving directions and say how others were eliminated. Use the criteria you defined earlier, and disclose and justify any change to their weights. Score each direction on each criterion, citing the unit or evidence behind every score. Total the scores under each weighting scheme. Then run a sensitivity check that tests whether your choice survives different weights, including extreme ones. Interpret the result beyond the ranking: what the second-place direction does better and whether elements of it can be kept. Explain why the evidence supports your choice. Four pages centered on a matrix of directions by criteria, with a smaller sensitivity table, is a common format. State clearly which direction you choose and what stays optional.
How this GB815 Unit 9 example is built
The matrix names three directions: public loan records alone, the same with interviews and lender interviews alone, and explains how the disclosure-document and franchisee survey directions fell away. The six Unit 2 criteria appear with access risk doubled, justified by the seminar. Each score cites its source, such as the Unit 3 grid or the Unit 5 trial, and totals appear under both weightings. The sensitivity section shows the ranking holds even with access weighted at zero, which the highlighted sentence states. The interpretation notes that interviews would raise practitioner use and keeps them optional, and observes that the lender-interview question remains worth asking by someone outside a competing bank. Published work by Bates and by the Glennon and Nigro team backs the chosen direction.
Where the points sit in the GB815 Unit 9 rubric
GB815 instructors grade the comparison matrix on whether the choice can be audited. Criteria should match those defined earlier, and any change in weights must be disclosed with a reason. Every score earns credit when it cites the evidence behind it, since unsupported numbers imply false precision. Totals should be reproducible from the scores shown. A sensitivity check is heavily weighted because it shows whether the choice depends on the weighting. Interpreting what the losing directions do better, and keeping their useful elements, shows judgment. The final choice should be stated plainly with what remains optional. Citations to studies that support the chosen method complete the grade, and a reader should be able to check every total in the matrix.
Common GB815 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GB815 comparison matrices fill cells with numbers that have no stated source, which makes the totals arbitrary. Others change criteria or weights without saying so. Students often skip the sensitivity check, though it is the clearest evidence that a choice is robust. Losing directions are dismissed without asking what they offer. The final choice is sometimes left implicit. List the directions and how others were eliminated, keep your original criteria, disclose weight changes, cite evidence for each score, total under each scheme, test the weights, interpret beyond the ranking and state your choice. Send your surviving directions and the ratings from earlier units, and a writer can lay out the matrix and its sensitivity test.
Get a GB815 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the directions still in contention, the criteria you set earlier and the evidence each unit produced, alongside your Unit 9 prompt and rubric. Criteria are carried forward faithfully in the matrix built for you, every cell cites a source, any reweighting is disclosed and the ranking's sensitivity is tested. Your first sample is free; 24-48h is typical. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GB815 papers and MBA samples
- GB815 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- GB815 Unit 2: Direction Feasibility Memo
- GB815 Unit 3: Evidence Mapping Exercise
- GB815 Unit 4: Study Quality Appraisal
- GB815 Unit 5: Data Source Audit
- GB815 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GB815 Unit 7: Scope Narrowing Exercise
- GB815 Unit 8: Practitioner Relevance Brief
- GB815 Unit 10: Research Prospectus
- GB794 Unit 9: Evidence Summary
- GB793 Unit 9: Conceptual Model Paper
- GB792 Unit 9: Research Design Proposal
- GB791 Unit 9: Literature Synthesis
GB815 Unit 9 questions, answered
Can the criteria change between Unit 2 and Unit 9?
They can, provided the change is disclosed and justified. Learning something during the term, such as how access fails, is a legitimate reason to reweight. The matrix states the change, its reason and its date, and a sensitivity check shows whether the ranking depends on it. Silent changes are what graders penalize.
Should scores be numbers or ratings like high and low?
Either works if the scale is defined. Numbers allow weighting and totals but can imply precision the evidence lacks, so whole-number scales from one to five are common. Ratings avoid false precision but make sensitivity checks harder. Whichever is used, each score needs a stated reason and a pointer to its evidence.
What if two directions tie?
Then the matrix has done its job by showing the decision rests on something other than the listed criteria, and the interpretation should say what that is. Often a tie resolves by combining directions, as with a core study and an optional extension, or by naming the single uncertainty whose resolution would break it.
Where can I find a free GB815 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds a full GB815 Unit 9 comparison matrix choosing among three research directions with sourced scores, two weighting schemes and a sensitivity check.
Why run a sensitivity check on a decision matrix?
Because weights are judgments. If the choice changes when weights change, it rests on the weighting rather than the evidence; if it holds, the decision is more secure.